Dems troubled by Obamacare’s politically toxic employer mandate

posted at 1:21 pm on July 7, 2014 by Noah Rothman

In a fanfare-free announcement on the Treasury Department’s Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy’s blog in February, the administration announced that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that medium-sized businesses cover their employees’ health coverage or pay fines was delayed… again. The implementation of the employer mandate was previously delayed for businesses of all sizes until 2015, but the administration determined that this was still not enough time to allow for the majority of American firms to comply with the 2010 law. That latest delay pushed off the employer mandate for businesses with between 50 and 99 employees until 2016.

In June,National Journal’s Ron Fournier predicted that the White House would have no choice but to embrace the mandate – it is the “law of the land,” after all – and they should do it sooner rather than later. He noted that the mandate is a critical funding mechanism designed to help subsidize expanded insurance coverage, and that it would require an act of Congress in an election year to repeal it.

“They’ve already delayed the mandate twice,” Fournier wrote. “A third time would further diminish the credibility of the law and of the administration.”

But the political and technical problems the mandate presents for the party in power have long been a greater source of concern for liberals. In July of last year, Vox.com founder Ezra Klein praised the delay of the ACA’s employer mandate and recommended that it be repealed entirely. In April, former White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs predicted that the mandate would be jettisoned entirely.

It seems that liberal advocates and activists are leaning more in that direction than in Fournier’s. On Monday, a Politico report detailed how liberals are giving up on the employer mandate.

“More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good,” Politico reported.

The employer coverage rules were part of the ACA’s core philosophy that individuals, employers and the government should all contribute to paying health care costs. Some Democratic constituencies, including labor unions and Obamacare proponents like Families USA, still see it that way.

But the shift among liberal policy experts and advocates has been rapid. A stream of studies and statements have deemed the mandate only moderately useful for getting more people covered under Obamacare. And they too have come to see it as clumsy, a regulatory and financial burden that creates as many problems as it solves.

The objections Klein raised to the employer mandate in 2013 are similar to those being raised by liberal policy advocates:

- By imposing a tax on employers for hiring people from low- and moderate-income families who would qualify for subsidies in the new health insurance exchanges, it would discourage firms from hiring such individuals and would favor the hiring — for the same jobs — of people who don’t qualify for subsidies (primarily people from families at higher income levels).
- It would provide an incentive for employers to convert full-time workers (i.e., workers employed at least 30 hours per week) to part-time workers.
- It would place significant new administrative burdens and costs on employers.

Fully repealing the employer mandate would require an act of Congress; an unlikely prospect. The last two delays to the mandate were enacted when the administration requested that the IRS delay the implementation of penalties on noncompliant businesses. “Republicans won’t pass any legislation that makes the law work better,” Klein wrote. “Improving the law, they fear, will weaken the arguments for repeal.”

Moderate Republicans, meanwhile, say that the administration is to blame for the lack of legislative fixes to the ACA. “The White House is putting a lot of pressure on the Democratic leadership to not allow a vote on a significant change to Obamacare that would likely pass,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), one of the cosponsors of a bill to repeal the employer mandate, told Politico.

Fourier’s prediction was based on the assumption that the White House’s credibility was on the line if they refused to implement the employer mandate. It would seem, though, that the White House believes that their credibility would be more imperiled if the implementation of the mandate was a disaster or if they suffered a political rebuke in Congress when a major portion of the health care reform law is repealed in a bipartisan vote.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

In June, National Journal’s Ron Fournier predicted that the White House would have no choice but to embrace the mandate – it is the “law of the land,” after all – and they should do it sooner rather than later. He noted that the mandate is a critical funding mechanism designed to help subsidize expanded insurance coverage, and that it would require an act of Congress in an election year to repeal it.

“Critical funding mechanism”? As if not going over budget was ever a concern of this White House? And here’s something that should surprise no one on here. Their base doesn’t give a damn about the cost of Obamacare either.

The employer mandate is one of those rare occasions a Voxsplainer will be honest, but that is only because the employer mandate has the potential to destroy the Democratic Party as we know it. So Klein embraces the obvious truths that we all figured out back in 2009.

Republicans won’t pass any legislation that makes the law work better,” Klein wrote. “Improving the law, they fear, will weaken the arguments for repeal.”

So this unworkable, crap legislation is Republican’s fault even though they were allowed no input in drafting it, were not allowed to offer amendments and weren’t even given the opportunity to read it before being forced to vote on it?

Fourier’s prediction was based on the assumption that the White House’s credibility was on the line if they refused to implement the employer mandate. It would seem, though, that the White House believes that their credibility would be more imperiled if the implementation of the mandate was a disaster or if they suffered a political rebuke in Congress when a major portion of the health care reform law is repealed in a bipartisan vote.

Proof positive that zero and the Dems are finding out they can’t have their cake and eat it too…

A law doesn’t work the way it’s written? Then just re-write it to suit yourself and your political objectives. It’s the Obama way.

Constitution? Oath of office? What are those? Just some stuff thought up by old dead white guys. They clearly don’t apply to His Chocolate Holiness Barack I, who is so much smarter and better than the rest of us.

“More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democratic thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing businesses if they don’t offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good,” Politico reported.

It’s “unnecessary” because Democrats no longer need to keep up the fiction that Obamacare will pay for itself. They needed to lie about that when trying to pass it, but now they are comfortable relying on deficit spending to prop it up.

Of course, the GOP cannot call the Democrats on this fact because the GOP is also committed to deficit spending.

Sometimes the relentless “inside baseball” orientation of this site is bizarre. Democrats are “troubled” by the mandate? They wish the President was more aware of “messaging” problems on immigration? Job losses are “concerning”. I wish those politicos had some idea of the devastating impact all their playing around has on the rest of us!

I suppose a huge tidal wave election would really put these issues into better focus for Democrat politicians but, sadly, all we have to vote for are Republicans so any tidal wave is going to be muted in effect, as GOP insiders start trying to bring nuance and “good government” to fixing the rotten mess instead of repealing Obamacare, ending the regulatory morass they’ve created and imprisoning the fascists, as I would prefer. Oh well.

All say the same thing about the current GOP Congressional Leadership.

Rather than stay out of the way when your opponent is making critical mistakes, these mental midgets prefer to ‘reach across the aisle’ to make those mistakes, their mistakes in some naive idea that today’s politics are fought via the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

Of course no one in a position of power cares whether or not the PPACA actually works or not, if by working you mean delivering lower-cost useable health insurance to Americans who want it.

The PTB only care whether or not this bill delivers power and money to themselves and their cronies, benefactors and sycophants.

And since it has (or soon will, if not already) ripped an enormous amount of formerly discretionary income from working Americans and small employers, as well as relegating what were once private decisions to a soulless bureaucracy, I can see how our masters think the law simply requires a bit of tweaking and massaging to keep the proletariat from waking too soon from our Kardashian-drugged sleep.

Fourier’s prediction was based on the assumption that the White House’s credibility was on the line if they refused to implement the employer mandate. It would seem, though, that the White House believes that their credibility would be more imperiled if the implementation of the mandate was a disaster or if they suffered a political rebuke in Congress when a major portion of the health care reform law is repealed in a bipartisan vote.

In order for Obama’s credibility to take a hit, the media would have to honestly report on things.

If after all the blatant lies Obama has told he has any credibility at all, it is only because the media protects him, call his lies “half-truths” or other nonsense, and refuses to report on the issues.

Of course, it doesn’t hurt that the GOP does little to nothing to attack Obama. Hell, both McCain and Romney were scarred to attack him, as is most of the current GOP leadership in the house and senate.

If the GOP attacked Obama with half the gusto it attacks conservatives, Obama’s “credibility” would already be gone amongst the LIVs. But, we can’t expect that to happen. After all, the GOP is fully owned subsidiary of the DNC.

Fully repealing the employer mandate would require an act of Congress; an unlikely prospect

Noah Rothman completely lost me with this very lame sentence!

The Obama administration cannot go to Congress on Obamacare, because it will be disassembled. For good reason, IT WILL NOT WORK AS WRITTEN!

The Employer Mandate is a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION waiting to happen. Instead of tens of million people being thrown off their current plan, there will be 100′s of millions of people who will have to go into the Obamacare markets and pay more money for worse coverage. At that point, it will be impossible to forget the if-you-like-your-plan/doctor Big Lie.

Catch-22 – Obamacare cannot exist as written without the employer mandate. But launching the employer mandate will cause the collapse of Obamacare.

Fully repealing the employer mandate would require an act of Congress; an unlikely prospect

Noah Rothman completely lost me with this very lame sentence!

Fully repealing the employer mandate will not happen in THIS Congress, with Harry Reid holding the gavel.

If Republicans get a Senate majority in November, then both houses of Congress can vote to repeal not only the employer mandate, but the rest of Obamacare as well.

Obama could still veto such a repeal vote, but that would put the blame for the whole health-care mess squarely on Obama. If Obama stubbornly clings to the Obamacare law despite a Congressional vote to repeal it, that would hurt the chances of Democrat candidates for President in 2016.

Remember, waaaaay back in 2009, when the Democrats made a big deal about nonseverability, and that if one part of Obamacare was repealed, it would all be repealed? They really liked that part, because it was supposed to stick the Republicans with a hugh White Elephant that they could not do anything with, which would crush them at the polls.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I suppose…

Of course, the actual law means nothing. The nonseverability clause can surely be ignored, just as any other aspect of this law is routinely ignored. We are in a post-legal regime, here.

If the GOP attacked Obama with half the gusto it attacks conservatives, Obama’s “credibility” would already be gone amongst the LIVs. But, we can’t expect that to happen. After all, the GOP is fully owned subsidiary of the DNC.

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2014 at 2:01 PM

You do not think they have attacked him enough? You don’t think the 24/7 constant attacks by the most watched cable station FNC is good enough? What other attacks would you recommend?

In June, National Journal’s Ron Fournier predicted that the White House would have no choice but to embrace the mandate – it is the “law of the land,” after all

Riiiiiiiiight… Anyone who believes that the White House cares about following the law, hasn’t been paying attention.

“They’ve already delayed the mandate twice,” Fournier wrote. “A third time would further diminish the credibility of the law and of the administration.”

The White House has no credibility.

The Republicans should loudly proclaim that they will follow the law, including fining businesses retroactively, no matter what how Obama promises he won’t follow the law. The law WILL BE FOLLOWED, and the dates are in the law. Follow this up with another bill to repeal the law. Use this to put pressure on the President to either follow the law, or repeal it.

Businesses will follow the mandate no matter what the President states increasing the heat on Democrats for the elections with the intent of repealing Obamacare.

I know the inherent risk in this action, but now is not the time to be cowards. (Boehner, I’m looking at you.)